linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] efi/loongarch: Reintroduce efi_relocate

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 12:13:26 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
Cc:     Youling Tang <tangyouling@...ngson.cn>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
        Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>,
        Xuerui Wang <kernel@...0n.name>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        loongson-kernel@...ts.loongnix.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/loongarch: Reintroduce efi_relocate_kernel() to
 relocate kernel

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 11:57, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, Ard,
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 4:20 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 10:14, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Ard,
> > >
> > > What is the status of this patch now?
> > >
> >
> > I'd still like to understand how zboot is affected. It has
> >
> > static unsigned long alloc_preferred_address(unsigned long alloc_size)
> > {
> > #ifdef EFI_KIMG_PREFERRED_ADDRESS
> >         efi_physical_addr_t efi_addr = EFI_KIMG_PREFERRED_ADDRESS;
> >
> >         if (efi_bs_call(allocate_pages, EFI_ALLOCATE_ADDRESS, EFI_LOADER_DATA,
> >                         alloc_size / EFI_PAGE_SIZE, &efi_addr) == EFI_SUCCESS)
> >                 return efi_addr;
> > #endif
> >         return ULONG_MAX;
> > }
> >
> > and if I understand you correctly, we never needed this in the first place?
> Technically we don't need this, but I think setting a preferred
> address as before may be better (keeping the default behavior the same
> as before can avoid some unexpected problem).
>

OK makes sense

I have queued this up now, should appear in -next tomorrow.